commons-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Gilles <>
Subject Re: [Math][ALL] Travis failing (with JDK7 but not JDK8)
Date Wed, 09 Aug 2017 23:08:57 GMT
On Wed, 9 Aug 2017 23:48:30 +0100, sebb wrote:
> On 9 August 2017 at 23:19, Gilles <> 
> wrote:
>> On Wed, 9 Aug 2017 15:46:54 +0100, sebb wrote:
>>> On 9 August 2017 at 13:51, Gilles <> 
>>> wrote:
>>>> Hi.
>>>> Build with Java 8 runs fine:
>>>> But with Java 7:
>>>> Is anyone willing to debug this failure?
>>> 1) Bug in maven-jgit-buildnumber-plugin - rather noisy when it 
>>> cannot
>>> find the current git info
>> That's not what makes the build fail since it happens in both.
>>> 2) Bug in JVM - buffer overflow.
>> That's the issue.
>> [I should have mentioned that I had also read the job log,
>> before posting.]
> Yes, that would have saved others some effort.

Hmm, when asking for help to "debug the issue", I thought that
it was obvious that reading the log was involved necessary but
not sufficient...

>>> Both of these could happen with any Java version.
>>>> Or is this a hint for making Java 8 the minimum supported
>>>> version for the next release?
>>> That is not a valid conclusion from the evidence.
>> How do you draw that conclusion?
> Because there is no proof that the failure is caused by using Java 7
> rather than because the test uses a specific version of the Java 7
> JVM.
> JVM crashes tend to be specific to particular implementations.
> It any case, a test that fails with a JVM crash is not a failure of
> the code being tested but of the JVM itself.

Sure. Never implied that the problem was in the Java code...

>> More to the point, my request is: What to do to fix the negative
>> advertisement for the project which this Travis issue propagates
>> (see badge):
> No idea. Ask a Travis guru.

More more to the point, that's the purpose of my posting here!

> The negative publicity belongs to the specific Java 7 JVM which is 
> crashing.

Sure. Never implied anything else.

> Commons Math should really be praised for exposing the bug.

And what will we do of it?
That was the "hint" referred to above: if there is no interest in
fixing that bug in a Java7 JVM, we should at least stop submitting
that job to Travis.

You are, of course, right that we do not have to target Java 8.
My point was: Is there anyone reading this interested in keeping
Java 7 compatibility?
And, if yes, then _those_ people should IMHO be interested in
fixing the problem reported here.

> I think this just shows that automated checks are only useful if it 
> is
> clearly understood how the checkers measure success/failure.

I don't follow. [Or do you suggest that Travis should report
"success" because the code succeeded in crashing the JVM ;-) ].


>> Regards,
>> Gilles

To unsubscribe, e-mail:
For additional commands, e-mail:

View raw message